Popeyes manager fired for refusing to pay back $400 taken in armed robbery

[Mertex]

She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies;

If that was the case, then the company is a fault for not demoting her. If it is so damn important to make sure the registers don't have more than $200, and she was not doing her job in keeping them below $200, then they should have demoted her long before.

The thing is, you don't fire someone that has been robbed at gunpoint, who is pregnant and probably saved your company lots of money by not opening the safe, and demand that she pay the $400 that the thief stole. That was heartless, regardless of their policies.

 

[Pop23]

Prozac kickin in our what?

I guess I stumped you, huh?

Lol, just for giggles I'll give you a simple assignment. K?

Sit outside a fast food joint. Park near the drivethru window and listen as the employee tells the customer how much is owed. Watch for method of payment.

Now the part that will be difficult for you......

ADD

Look through the window and estimate the number of customers......

For you I'll allow you to use a calculator for the next part.....

MULTIPLY

now, get your head out of that Prozac fog and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

You have no evidence any of this happened. You forgot all about surveillance cameras, didn't you? You're flight of theory has nothing to do with this story, so stuff it.

Did I say it happened.

Go back and read

Then why don't we confine the discussion to what actually happened before the aliens invade, shall we?

When I attempt to answer how a robber would know how much cash would be in the till, that is what I am doing.

 

[rightwinger]

Perhaps if people boycott all Popeyes restaurants, they'll yank the franchise from under the pathetic fascists.

I don't eat there because I hate how EVERYTHING is spicy..now even better reason to NOT eat there ever again...oh and this is capitalism for ya!

Thats why I don't eat at McDonalds....everything is bland

 

[rightwinger]

She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies;

If that was the case, then the company is a fault for not demoting her. If it is so damn important to make sure the registers don't have more than $200, and she was not doing her job in keeping them below $200, then they should have demoted her long before.

The thing is, you don't fire someone that has been robbed at gunpoint, who is pregnant and probably saved your company lots of money by not opening the safe, and demand that she pay the $400 that the thief stole. That was heartless, regardless of their policies.

Agree

She violated policy by allowing too much money in the register. But it was $400 not a whole days receipts

The bigger point is she risked her life in your employ and no employees or customers were hurt in the robbery

 

[SAYIT]

Every place I worked at, including my own two stores, was 200 in the till. No more, no less.

So the real cost then would have been only $200 lost. They fired her for a mere $200.

They fired her for not doing her job. Period.

Which Job was that and why was Management not there to ensure there were no excuses to the bottom line?

Her JOB was to MANAGE the store. MANAGERS have DUTIES. One of those DUTIES is to dump cash in the drop box safe when the register goes over 200 bucks. Why was not management there? Hello? Is anyone home, McFly? SHE WAS THE MANAGER! HER superiors were not there because they hired HER as MANAGER when they are not there. Get it?
Dayum.

Geez, Gracie, I guess you've never been in a situation where you failed to do something you were supposed to do......it must be nice to be perfect.

According to the article this wasn't her first failure to comply with company policies and she had a viable option to getting fired ... replace the $400 that was stolen, in part, due to her failure. She prefered to be fired.

 

[ORION83]

Perhaps if people boycott all Popeyes restaurants, they'll yank the franchise from under the pathetic fascists.

I don't eat there because I hate how EVERYTHING is spicy..now even better reason to NOT eat there ever again...oh and this is capitalism for ya!

Thats why I don't eat at McDonalds....everything is bland

I think last time I ate "fast food" was a biscuit place that's not a chain just a local joint. Had the meal deal from Little Caesars yesterday.

 

[SAYIT]

She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies;

If that was the case, then the company is a fault for not demoting her...

And had the company done so you and the loony leftist brigade would have had the same hissy fit you are having now. I can see the headline: "Pregnant Manager Demoted! Eat The Rich!"

 

[Yurt]

so you have no proof that she was fired for not giving back $400....quite the conundrum

We both dont have proof, but we both believe what we want. Weird huh>?

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

 

[Mertex]

She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies;

If that was the case, then the company is a fault for not demoting her...

And had the company done so you and the loony leftist brigade would have had the same hissy fit you are having now. I can see the headline: "Pregnant Manager Demoted! Eat The Rich!"

Don't be an idiot.....they don't broadcast demotions......just shows how ignorant conservatives like you are.

 

[Yurt]

It took a woman to recognize the error the company made in firing this pregnant woman and expecting her to pay back what was stolen. And conservatives don't think women deserve the same pay for the same work......


Popeye's CEO Cheryl Bachelder wasted no time addressing the controversy that erupted yesterday when news went viral that an employee at one of their franchises was fired after she refused to pay back cash stolen in a robbery at gunpoint.
Popeye s makes job offer to pregnant worker who was robbed and then fired

cite you lying shit

 

[Mertex]

We both dont have proof, but we both believe what we want. Weird huh>?

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

 

[Mertex]

It took a woman to recognize the error the company made in firing this pregnant woman and expecting her to pay back what was stolen. And conservatives don't think women deserve the same pay for the same work......


Popeye's CEO Cheryl Bachelder wasted no time addressing the controversy that erupted yesterday when news went viral that an employee at one of their franchises was fired after she refused to pay back cash stolen in a robbery at gunpoint.
Popeye s makes job offer to pregnant worker who was robbed and then fired

cite you lying shit

Are you that stupid? Click on "refused to pay back cash stolen in a robbery at gunpoint".........geez.....you need to be spoonfed....you must be really dense.

 

[rightwinger]

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

The idiot owner was more concerned about being out $400 than the fact that his employees risked their lives for him

 

[Mertex]

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

The idiot owner was more concerned about being out $400 than the fact that his employees risked their lives for him

It didn't take long for the soulless bastards to come in and show their asses.

 

[Mertex]

According to the article this wasn't her first failure to comply with company policies

That's what they say........but do they have proof that she had done it before? Why didn't they demote her if she had? Quit trying to find excuses for the soulless and heartless companies you and your ilk call people.

 

[ClosedCaption]

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

Just. a. coincidence.

 

[Mertex]

if I owned a conversation store

What the hell is a conversation store? You mean you actually buy your conversations?

 

[Mertex]

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

Just. a. coincidence.

A coincidence? Oh, you think perhaps the owners were not aware she was robbed at gunpoint? That's too funny.

 

[rightwinger]

if I owned a conversation store

What the hell is a conversation store? You mean you actually buy your conversations?

May be spellcheck gone awry

 

[Yurt]

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

fuck you, where did i say they were right for what they did? i've already said they messed up you little liar. i was asking for proof that she was fired for not giving back the money, you quoted the article in a snide manner, while IGNORING the part of the article that said she wasn't fired for that.

all you've done is prove you're an idiot.